Music

For me, it still comes down to my philosophy that there is no single
soul mate for someone. There is no perfect match. People are conflicted
and flippant, so to think that there's one person that can meet all
that we want seems, well, impossible.

Rather I always believed that there are maybe a hundred or so "ones"
out there - the ones that you can spend the rest of your lives together
in happiness, the one's who can make you smile day-in, day-out. The
one's that can touch your heart.

But the chance of meeting these "one's" are still pretty slim. You
may never meet one, you may meet one (and think it's your soul mate) or
you may be lucky enough to meet a few.

Looking back, I have to say that I've been lucky to meet probably a
few. The one that I marry may very well not be the one, but there's so much
of her that I appreciate that she is one of those that have become
"one", but not a natural "one" if that makes sense.

The other two would have to be Ja- and Je-...coincidentally
both with J's (never thought of that). Yet the two are so
different.

With Ja-, I could imagine myself traveling the world,
discussing, debating, trying all sorts of things and challenging each
other. We would have our own lives as well and it would just be a very
fulfilling relationship on most fronts, with a lot of conversation.

With Je-, since we can barely communicate anyway, it seems I can
see myself just staying in one place and doing whatever. Sitting at
home on the couch all day - walk in a market the whole afternoon, lay
by a swimming pool for a morning, watch the sunset...I guess you can
say, she calms me.

But I could never see their traits combined in one. And there are
other traits from people that I can see myself connecting with.

Will I be unfortunate enough to meet another one of the "ones"? I
always hope so, but also know the torment of meeting one when you
cannot be together. Maybe that's part of what makes them the "one".

And maybe, just maybe, there is actually that one soul mate out there, but just that most of us are never lucky enough to meet.

But for now, I count my blessings for the ones that I have met. As heartwrenching as it may be at times.

I'm sure you haven't read this anywhere in the newspaper. Why you might ask? Maybe because it's more important to know that a wacko like Tom Cruise is getting engaged with Katie Holmes rather than the fact that the United States is using banned chemical weapons against innocent civilians in a war that was inititated through fabricated lies.

Go ahead, make a search in US mainstream media. You will not find a single report on this story. Sad thing is this story was out two years ago.

The Independent August 10, 2003

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

By Andrew Buncombe

American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent
napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks
caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots
and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version
of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a
distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an
enemy.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of
napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to
skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the
few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously
against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war.

The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol,
was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped
near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of
Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel
James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there
were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They
were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love
napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

A reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald who witnessed another
napalm attack on 21 March on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill,
close to the Kuwaiti border, wrote the following day: "Safwan Hill went
up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. 'I pity
anyone who is in there,' a Marine sergeant said. 'We told them to
surrender.'"

At the time, the Pentagon insisted the report was untrue. "We
completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on 4 April, 2001," it
said.

The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war.

"Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are
a horrible, horrible weapon," said Robert Musil, director of the
organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility. "It takes up an
awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds." Mr Musil
said denial of its use "fits a pattern of deception [by the US
administration]".

The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a
distinction between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the
weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh
510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of
jet fuel.

Officials said that if journalists had asked about the
firebombs their use would have been confirmed. A spokesman admitted
they were "remarkably similar" to napalm but said they caused less
environmental damage.

But John Pike, director of the military studies group
GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "You can call it something other than napalm
but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that they
now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US is the
only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of
any other country that uses it." Marines returning from Iraq chose to
call the firebombs "napalm".

Mr Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction
between the weapons was outrageous. He said: "It's Orwellian. They do
not want the public to know. It's a lie."

In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Corps
Maj-Gen Jim Amos confirmed that napalm was used on several occasions in
the war.

It's not that I enjoy destroying my body, but I've managed to tear another ligament in one of my legs. This time I severely sprained my right ankle and tore a ligament on the side. Fortunately, no surgery required and I'm healing up surprisingly fast.

The main problem is that I never properly rehabbed my left knee from last year's surgery. I'm surprised I managed to play ball for this long. Anyhow, definitely gonna properly rehab this time. Time to hit the gym again!

Never saw this movie, but the sequel Before Sunset's premise seems very interesting. A question that I often ask is what it would be like to meet the girl that I had fallen head over heels for years ago, but never had the opportunity to see what could really be.

So decided to watch the first movie last night. It was actually a really good movie, definitely a movie I could relate to and I'm sure most people can see shades of their own experience in the film. Looking forward to seeing the sequel now, got it on DVD.

One thing of note, some of the psuedo-philosophical rantings in the movie were quite interesting. I especially like Ethan Hawke's observation of how if there were only some one million people thousands of years ago, and now billions, where did all the souls come from, and are we just bits of the collective now? Intersting question and I wonder how one that believes in reincarnation would answer that.